Hello Op vrijdag 22 december 2006 05:28, schreef Boris Mann:
The reason they exist is historical, and is just for flexibility.
This reason is, IMNSHO, the worst reason you can think of. It basically says "we are not open for substantial improvement", or "we made mistakes in the past, and are not willing to fix these". Drupal has a good history of not stepping into that trap. Drupal has not been afraid to break old code and concepts. Yet in this very case page and story were allowed to co-exist, without any clear reason. FRom 4.6 to 4.7 and now from 4.7 to 5.0
And for an upgrade path from 4.7. Sure, but does this not indicate that, with little more effort we would have had a *real* solution instead of an *easy* one?
I can think (and have proposed them several times, even with patches, just to cut off that argument) of at least three solutions that are really easy: - Pages get a link in the menu automagically, stories not. - The interface for stories: a 20-lines textfield, and a title. pages: a 50 lines textfield and a title. - An autocreated taxonomy-tree is connected to stories. Stories can be categorised by default, pages don't need to be. I guess there are a million small things like this (Boris proposed some other ones), that can bring us to a good intermediate solution: not removing stories or pages, but utilising the virtual difference. Bèr -- Ik doneer alle advertentie inkomsten x2 aan Serious Request/Music 4 life. Doe ook mee: -- http://bler.webschuur.com/ik_doneer_alle_advertentie_inkomsten_x2_aan_seriou... Drupal, Ruby on Rails and Joomla! development: webschuur.com | Drupal hosting: www.sympal.nl